Early  Journal  Content  on  JSTOR,  Free  to  Anyone  in  the  World  
This  article  is  one  of  nearly  500,000  scholarly  works  digitized  and  made  freely  available  to  everyone  in  
the  world  by  JSTOR.    

Known  as  the  Early  Journal  Content,  this  set  of  works  include  research  articles,  news,  letters,  and  other  
writings  published  in  more  than  200  of  the  oldest  leading  academic  journals.  The  works  date  from  the  
mid-­‐seventeenth  to  the  early  twentieth  centuries.    

 We  encourage  people  to  read  and  share  the  Early  Journal  Content  openly  and  to  tell  others  that  this  
resource  exists.    People  may  post  this  content  online  or  redistribute  in  any  way  for  non-­‐commercial  
purposes.  

Read  more  about  Early  Journal  Content  at  http://about.jstor.org/participate-­‐jstor/individuals/early-­‐

journal-­‐content.    

JSTOR  is  a  digital  library  of  academic  journals,  books,  and  primary  source  objects.  JSTOR  helps  people  
discover,  use,  and  build  upon  a  wide  range  of  content  through  a  powerful  research  and  teaching  
platform,  and  preserves  this  content  for  future  generations.  JSTOR  is  part  of  ITHAKA,  a  not-­‐for-­‐profit  
organization  that  also  includes  Ithaka  S+R  and  Portico.  For  more  information  about  JSTOR,  please  
contact  support@jstor.org.  
1904.] JASTROW-THE HAMITES AND SEMITES. 173

THE HAMITES AND SEMITES IN THE TENTH CHAP-

TER OF GENESIS.

BY MORRIS JASTROW, JR.

(Read April 4, 1903.)

I.
The Ioth chapter of Genesis is generally admitted to be one of
the most remarkable but also one of the most puzzling documents
of antiquity. Scholars have been engaged ever since the days of
the Talmud' and of Eusebius in attempts to identify the nations
named in the chapter and in endeavors to determine the point of
view from which the division of nations has been made and to
ascertain the character of the underlying ethnological and ethno-
graphical scheme, if there be one in the chapter. Modern research,
aided to a certain extent by ancient tradition, has succeeded in
identifying a large number of the nations enumerated,2 but the
attempts to discover any system in the grouping of the nations have
failed chiefly because of the erroneous assumption that an ancient
document could give evidence either of scientific accuracy or of
ethnological finesse. An adequate conception of what really con-
stituted a nation lay beyond the mental horizon of the ancient
For a partial bibliography see Dillmann's Genesis (Engl. transl. of sixth ed.,
Edinburgh, 1897), p. 325. For the Talmudical views and identifications see
Neubauer, La Geographie du Talmud (Paris, I868), pp. 421-429.
2 See for recent expositions the commentaries of Gunkel (1901), Holzinger

(I899), Strack (I894), and Driver (1903) to the chapter in question; also
Schrader, Cuneiform Inscriptions and the Old Testament (London, 1885), Vol.
i, pp. 6I-103; and Glaser, Skizze der Geographie und Geschichte Arabiens, ii
(Berlin, I890), chaps. 26 to 28. The chapter in Alfred Jeremias' Das Alte
Testament im Lichte des Alten Orients (Leipzig, 1904), pp. I45-170, is to be
especially recommended as the latest summary of accepted identifications and
because of its valuable supplementary statements, and suggestions toward the
solution of the many problems in the xoth chapter of Genesis. A serious defect,
however, of Jeremias' treatment of the chapter is his failure to take sufficiently
into account its composite character, consisting, as it does, of two distinct docu-
ments together with many glosses and insertions. Thus, what he says about the
supposed "'Arabian " origin of Nimrod (p. 158) falls to the ground if verses 8-12
are recognized as an addition that stands in no connection with verse 7; nor
does Jeremias' general view of the Volkertafel as a unit (p. 145) commend
itself in the light of the critical analysis of the chapter.
174 JASTROW-THE HAMITES AND SEMITES. [April 4,

world, certainly of the ancient Orient. Apart from a certain

instinct-to speak indefinitely-which correctly led a people to
predicate its own closer or remoter relationship to others, reliance
was placed on more or less uncertain traditions, and the value of such
tradition was still further diminished by the subjective factors-a
people's likes and dislikes, its experiences and ambitions-that
entered as elements into its formation; and when we pass beyond
the immediate political environment of an ancient people, we must
be prepared for a nebulousness of views that is almost inconceiv-
able to a modern mind and for inconsistencies that are as bewil-
dering as they are numerous. In view of this, it is evident that the
critical analysis of the chapter to which modern scholarship has
devoted itself with marked success is insufficient for a solution of
the problems involved unless it also takes into account the uncriti-
cal attitude of the ancient world toward ethnological and geo-
graphical data.
The critical analysis of the Ioth chapter of Genesis has reached
a stage that may, with reasonable certainty, be regarded as definite
and as having attained its utmost limits.l Of the two documents
combined to form the present Volkertafel-to use the convenient
German term-the one that forms part of the Priestly Code, dis-
tinguished by critics as P, forms the chief element, as is the case
throughout the first eleven chapters of Genesis,2 while the other,
designated as J, has only been drawn upon to the extent of furnish-
ing supplementary data, though at times those supplementary data
exceed in length the account in P, and, occasionally, J furnishes
material, like the story of Cain and Abel, not found in P at all. In
the case of the Ioth chapter, while J is actually longer than P,
yet the latter document represents a far closer approach to a syste-
matic arrangement, whereas J, marked by many glosses, is extracted
in so arbitrary a fashion in order to supplement P that it is difficult
to obtain an accurate view of the system followed by the "J"
document in its original form.
When the two documents are placed side by side, the differences
between them will become clear.

1Wellhausen, Composition des Hexateuchs (3d ed., 1899, pp. 4-7).

2 Budde's Urgeschi.hte, pp. 499 sq., pp. 464-465, and also pp. 521-531,
where the Jahwistic source in the first eleven chapters of Genesis is put
together.
1903.] JASTROW-THE HAMITES AND SEMITES.
P.
I0, (Ia) These are the generations of
the sons of Noah; Shem, Ham and
Japheth. ( 2) The sons of Japheth
were Gomer, Gog,l Madai, Javan, Tu-
bal, Meshech and Tiras. (3) The
sons of Gomer were Ashkenaz, Rip.
hath and Togarmah. (4) The sons of
Javan were Elishah, Tarshish, Kittim
and Rodanim.2 (5) Of these the islands
of the nations branched off. [These
are the sons of Japheth] according to
their lands, each according to his lan-
guage, according to their clans among
their nations. (6) The sons of Ham
were Cush, Mizraim, Put and Canaan.
(7) The sons of Cush were Seba, Havi-
lah, Sabtah, Raamah and Sabtechah.
The sons of Raamah were Sheba and
Dedan. (20) These are the sons of
I1am according to their clans, their
language, according to their lands
among their nations. (22) The sons
of Shem were Elam, Asshur, Arpach-
shad, Lud and Aram. (23) The sons
of Aram were Uz, Hul, Gether and
Mash. (31) These are the sons of
Shem according to their clans, their
language, according to their lands, ac-
cording to their nations. (32) These
are the clans of the sons of Noah ac-
cording to their generations, among
their nations and from them the nations
were divided in the earth after the
flood.
1 Hebrew text has
magog, which,
however, appears to be an error for
gog.
2So read according to I Chr. I, 6
instead of Dodanim.
175
J.
9, (I8) The sons of Noah that went
forth of the ark were Shem, Ham and
Japheth (gloss: ana Ham is the father
of Canaan). (I9) These three were the
sons of Noah; and of them was the
whole earth overspread ... . (Io, Ib)
to them sons were born after the flood.
(8) Cush begat Nimrod. [He was the
first mighty one in the earth. (9)
He was a mighty hunter before Yah-
weh: wherefore the saying: A mighty
hunter like Nimrod before Jahweh.
(I0) The beginning of his kingdom
was Babel, Erech, Accad and Calneh
in the land of Shinar. (I ) Out of
that land he went forth to Assyria and
founded Nineveh, Rehoboth-Ir, Calah
and (I2) Resen (between Nineveh and
Calah) (gloss: that is the great city)].
.... (13) Mizraim begat Ludim,
Anamim, Lehabim, Naphtuhim, (14)
Pathrusim, Casluhim and Capthorim
(gloss: whence went forth the Philis-
tines 1). [(I5) Canaan begat Sidon
his first born and Heth (I6) (gloss:
the Yebusite, Amorite, (sirgasite,
(t7) Hivite, Arkite, Sinite, (18) Ar-
vadite, Zemarite and Hamathite) ].
Afterwards the clans of the Canaanite
spread, (I9) so that the boundary of
the Canaanite extended from Sidon to
Gerar [gloss: to Gaza] to Sodom and
Gomorrah [gloss: to Admah and Ze-
boim] to Lasha .... . (21) And to
Shem also (sons) were born, the father of
all the sons of Eber, the elder brother
of Japheth. ... (24 ) Arpachshad
begat Shelah and Shelah begat Eber-
(25) To Eber two sons were born, the
name of the one was Peleg (gloss:
for in his days the earth was diviaed2)
and the name of his brother was
Joktan. (26) Joktan begat Almodad,
Sheleph, Hazarmaveth, Jerah, (27)
Hadoram, Uzal, Diklah, (28) Obal,
Abimael, Sheba, (29) Ophir, Havilah
and Jobab. All these were the sons of
Joktan. (30) Their settlement was
from Mesha to Sephar, the mountain of
the east.
lCf. Amos 9, 7; Jer. 47, 4; Deut.
2, 23.
2niphlegz2.
 176 J ASTROW-THE HAMITES AND SEMITES. [April4,

II.
Beginning with io, I', as a heading,
"These are the generations of the sons of
Noah; Shem, Ham and Japheth,"
P furnishes (verses 2-5) the list of nations sprung from Japheth and
then takes up (vv. 6-7) the second son Ham, the close of which
enumeration is to be sought in v. 20. Thirdly, Shem, the oldest son,
is taken up (vv. 22-23), the continuation appearing in v. 3I, while
v. 32 represents the conclusion of the version as follows :
" These are the clans of the sons of Noah, according to their
generations, according to their tribes and from them the nations
were divided in the earth after the flood."
It will be observed that in this compact survey, resting on the
theory of the descent of all the nations of the earth from a single
ancestor, Noah, through three groups represented by Noah's three
sons, there are decided inequalities in treatment. Of the sons of
Japheth, only two, Gomer and Javan, are carried down into further
subdivisions. In the genealogy of Ham, only one, Cush, is singled
out for further subdivision, but this one is carried down through
its branch, Raamah, into a further subdivision, while of the sons
of Shem; again, only one, Aram, is further subdivided. Now it is
noticeable that none of these nations particularly singled out are
such as have had any close or direct contact with the Hebrews.
The identification of Gomer with the Gimirrai who appear in the
inscriptions of Assyrian kings being quite certain,1 the subdivisions
of Gomer, viz., Ashkenaz,2 Riphath and Togarmah, must likewise
represent peoples whose settlements are to be sought in the north-
eastern or eastern section of Asia Minor. They belong to the
"extreme north,"3 have nothing to do with Hebrew history and
could only have been of interest to Hebrews because of the general
terror inspired throughout the ancient Orient by the threatening

1Cf. Schrader, Cuneiform Inscriptions and the Old Testament, i, p. 62, and
Meyer, Geschzichtedes Alterthums, i, pp. 5I6 and 543-548.
2 Distorted from
Ashkuza, according to Winckler (Keilinschriften und das
Alte Testament, i, p. IoI), who regards them as the Scythians.
3Cf. Ezekiel 38, 6. Ashkunaz is only referred to once again in the Old Tes-
tament, viz., Jer. 51, 27; Riphath not at all and Togarmah twice in Ezekiel
27, I4; 38, 6. The parallel VoYkertafel(I chr. i, 5-25) dependent on Genesis
Io is, of course, excluded from consideration.
1903.] JASTROW-THE HAMITES AND SEMITES. 177

advance movement of northern hordes during the seventh century

B.C. The case is somewhat different with Javan, which is to be
identified with Ionia.1 While none of the subdivisions of Javan
enter into direct relations with the Hebrews, with the possible
exception of Tarshish,2 until the time of the inpouring of the
Greeks into Semitic settlements after the conquest of the Greeks,
Cyprus, represented by Kittim, as well as Rhodes, represented
by Rodanim,3 must have been at all events familiar names to
the Hebrews in pre-exilic days. A certain amount of interest
due to commercial relations may also have been attached to the
settlements of the Greek archipelago, comprised under the desig-
nation, " Islands of the Nations." For all that, the sons of Javan
have little to do with Hebrew history proper until a comparatively
late period. Among the sons of Ham-Cush, Put, Mizraim and
Canaan-we might have expected the two last-named to have been
taken up in detail and carried down into further subdivisions. If
instead of this, it is Cush that is carried down into two subdivis-
ions, the conclusion appears justified that in this case, likewise,
the point of view is not that of one primarily interested in Hebrew
history; and it is equally remarkable that of the sons of Aram,
viz., Uz, Hul, Gether and Mash, the last three are never mentioned
again in the Old Testament, while Uz appears only as the home of
Job and in a passage in Lamentations (4, 21) where it is used in
parallelism with Edom.3 To be sure, we have the genealogy of
Shem in the line Peleg-Eber once more introduced in P, namely,
Genesis I1, io-26, and this time carried down to the immediate
ancestor of the Hebrews, Abram. But the very fact that this is not
done in the Ioth chapter is a further proof for the proposition that

1The term is, however, extended to include Greeks in general (see Meyer,
Geschichte aes Alterthums, i, p. 492). In a paper read before the American
Oriental Society at Washington, April 8, I904 (to be published in Vol. 25 of the
Yournal of the Amer. Or. Soc.), Prof. C. C. Torrey showed that in the book of
Daniel (8, 21; IO, 20; II, 2) and in the first book of Maccabees, as well as in
the Talmudic notices, Javan is even used to designate the Greek kingdom of Syria,
replacing the earlier usage as, e.g., in the Ioth chapter of Genesis, for which we
would thus have as a terminus ad quem the fourth century B.C.
2See Haupt's discussion of the historical and archaeological problems
connected with Tarshish in his paper published in abstract in the Proceedings
of the Thirteenth International Congress of Orientalists (1902), Section v.
Jer. 25, 20, is to be excluded, because of the doubtful state of the text.
PROC. AMER. PHILOS. SOC. XLIII. 176. L. PRINTED JULY 13, 1904.
178 JASTROW-THE HAMITES AND SEMITES. [April4,

the enumeration of the thirty-four nations or groups included in

P's Volkertafel is not done from the point of view of one inter-
ested in Hebrew history. The situation is just reversed when we
come to the other source, known as J, which has been combined
by later compilers with P. Though, unfortunately, only a frag-
ment of the original Volkertafel of the Jahwist has been preserved,
yet what data there are, including a number of later glosses and
other additions, are all of a kind that betray a manifest interest in
Hebrew history and not in general ethnology.

III.

For the introduction to the second version, we must go back to

the close of the 9th chapter where we read (verses I8-I9):
"The sons of Noah that went forth of the ark were Shem,
Ham and Japheth.' These three were the sons of Noah and of
them was the whole earth overspread."
The continuation of the genealogical tradition appears chap. o, Ib:
. ... " to them sons were born after the flood."

After which a break occurs and when we again encounter this

Jahwistic version (Io, 8) we are in the midst of the genealogy of
the Hamites, which extends from verses 8 to I9. First Cush, who
begets Nimrod, is taken up, then Egypt and finally Canaan with
its offshoots. A second break follows and when the Jahwistic source
is again resumed, verses 21 and 24-30, the genealogy of Eber the
son of Shem is set forth. Fragmentary as the version thus is-the
genealogy of Japheth, e.g., being entirely wanting-a further
analysis points to at least two strata of tradition which, apparently
distinct from the Jahwistic Volkertafel, have been combined with
it, together with a number of supplementary or explanatory glosses.
The little section 8b 2 to 12, enlarging upon Nimrod and the origin
and extension of Babylonia and Assyria, is couched in an entirely
different style from 9, I8-19 and from Io, 13-14, and even in this
section verse 9a, which aims to furnish an explanation for a
1 There is added here a
gloss,,, and Ham is the father of Canaan," to pre.
pare us for the tale of Ham's disgrace and for the confusion between Ham and
Canaan in the curse pronounced by Noah upon his youngest son (vv. 25-27).
2 The words , and Cush
begat Ninrod (8a) may belong to the original
Jahwistic Volkerfafel.
1903.] JASTROW-THE HAMITES AND SEMITES. 179

popularproverb,is a gloss added to the section itself, and interrupts

the context. Again I6-I8a represent either a series of glosses or
belong to a differentsource, while the style of verses 21 and 25-30
is so differentagain from chap. 9, I8-I9, etc., that we are forced to
assume here likewise a different stratum. Gunkell distinguishes
these two strata as Jj and Je, on the supposition that the Jahwistic
documents in the book of Genesis representthe combination of the
original Jahwist with additions from the Elohist. Whether we
accept this or not, there can be no doubt that within the Jahwistic
version several distinct and originally independent sections are to
be distinguished. In accordancewith this view, we would have of
the original Jahwistic Voikertafelonly a brief notice about Cush,
a fuller one of Mizraim, while in the case of Canaan there is left
only the indications of the geographicalboundariesof Canaanitish
settlements. Still all these three groups are of profoundinterest to
a Hebrew historian, Cush because of Nimrod the representativeof
the Babylonians and Assyrians, while Egyptians and Canaanites
enter of course into Hebrew history at frequent points and at
importantcrises.
Taking up the additions to the remains of the original Jahwistic
list of nations, it will be found that they fall in the same category
of data that have a special interest for the Hebrew historian. The
notice about Nimrod specifiesthe importantcentres of the Euphrates
Valley, Babylon, Erech, Accad (= Agade) and Calneh.2 In agree-
ment with the testimony of modern research, the foundation of
Assyria is traced back to Babylonia and the extent of Nineveh,
"the great city," with its suburbsis set forth.
The introduction of Heth as a son of Canaan (15b) may
representalready a supplementto the original Jahwistic document,
added because of the interest that the Hittites have for Hebrew
history,3 and to this notice a complete list has been added of the
groups of the Canaanitish nations which the Hebrews found upon
entering the country and with whom they are thus brought into
direct contact.4 Leaving aside variants or further specifications
1 Genesis, p. 77.
2
According to the Babylonian Talmud (Yoma Ioa), Nippur.
3 For a summary of the relations between Hebrew and Hittites, see the writer's
article ', Hittites " in the Encyclopadia Biblica, Vol. II.
4 It is to be
noted, however, that verses I7-18 furnish names of groups out-
side of the Hebrew settlements proper in Canaan.
ISO JASTROW-THE HAMITES AND SEMITES. [April 4,

of the geographical boundaries of Canaanitish settlements, we have

lastly the genealogy of Shem, introduced, however, as the opening
words show (v. 21),
"To Shem also (sons) were born, the
father of all the sons of Eber,"
for the sake of Eber to whom, through the Eber-Peleg line, the
Hebrews are directly traced back. Since, however, this genea-
logical chain is furnished by P in the following chapter (i I, I6-26)
the final redactor contented himself in the Ioth chapter with sup-
plying from the J source the genealogical line of the other son of
Eber, namely, Joktan. This list of Joktanides (verses 26-30) is
most valuable for several reasons. In the first place it furnishes
the proof for the thesis that the redactor who combined J and P
uses the former source as a supplement to P and secondly it shows
conclusively that J1 contained much fuller indications than the
other extracts from it used by P might lead us to believe. Indeed
the thirteen subdivisions of Joktan represent a much fuller genea-
logical chain than any to be found in P which records only seven
subdivisions for Japheth and five for Cush.2 The special reason
why the redactor introduces this long line of Joktanites appears to
be because it embodies a varying addition from P which places
Havilah among the sons of Cush and Sheba under Raamah the son
of Cush (verse 7), whereas the other source includes Havilah and
Sheba among the Joktanites (verses 28-29) and thus makes them
descendants of Shem. It is hardly reasonable to suppose that so
palpable an inconsistency should have escaped the notice of the
redactor and it is certainly more plausible to assume that just
because of this contradiction between the two sources, both were
introduced side by side, in accordance with the general character
of historical composition in the ancient Orient which is so largely
compilation. The Arabic historians of later days who are the
1 Or JE (i.e., Jahwist and Elohist) if we follow Gunkel's view as set forth
above (p. 179).
2 If it be assumed that the enumeration of the
Eber-Peleg line in the IIth
chapter has been transferred from its proper place in P's Volkertafel, it would
follow that P's list may also have originally been somewhat fuller than at present
appears, but this would not alter the main proposition that P represents the
basis in the Ioth chapter of Genesis, supplemented by J and possibly other
sources.
1903.J JASTROW-THE HAMITES AND SEMITES. 181

natural successors of the Hebrew compilers and redactors would

have proceeded in the same way, only they would probably have
introduced the second source by the word kila, ' others say," and
would have summed up the situation by the usual exclamation,
"Allah knows best "-which source is correct.
How complete the Jahwistic Vilkertafel originally was is, of
course, a question to which no definite answer can be given. If the
reference to Nimrod as the son of Cush (8a) belonged to the oldest
source in J, it would suffice as evidence that at least two branches-
Semites and Hamites-were included and this conclusion is con-
firmed by the inclusion of Canaan and Mizraim (I3-I5) but there
is no reference in any of the remaining parts of J to Japheth. This
may of course have been due to the omission of the Japheth gene-
alogy by the redactor who combined J with P, and if this be the
case the further conclusion would be justified that J contained
nothing of moment with regard to Japheth that was not already
mentioned in P. But besides the possibility that J did not con-
tain any genealogy of the descendants of Japheth-though in view
of the heading Gen. 9, I8 this is unlikely-there remains as an
alternative that Japheth may have been included by J under Shem.
There are some strong reasons for concluding that such was the
case in at least one of the sources worked up by the "J " school
of narrators. Attention has long since been directed' to the cir-
cumstance that in the story of Noah's curse pronounced on his
youngest son (9, 25-27) which is attributed by Gunkel' to Je, the
name of the son who is disgraced is Canaan, doomed to be "a
servant of servants unto his brethren," and this is emphasized by a
triple repetition of the curse (verses 25, 26, 27), each time with
the name of Canaan. It follows accordingly that the three sons
according to what is evidently an earlier tradition are Shem,3
Japheth and Canaan. In the poetical fragment of the curse,
Shem and Japheth are represented to be in close contact with each
other. Accepting with Gunkel,4 Gratz's simple and striking
emendation of verse 26b,

1See, e.g., Budde, Urgeschichte, p. 300 sq., and the discussion of Gunkel
(Com. to Genesis, pp. 7I-76) and Holzinger (Genesis, pp. 91-93).
2 Genesis, p. 71.
3 Or perhaps Eber. See below,
pp. 20I and 204.
4 L. C., p. 78. The change
proposed by Gratz merely involves an alteration
in the vowels of one word bar2kh (," blessed") for which Gratz suggests barekh
182 JASTROW-THE HAMITES AND SEMITES. [April4,

"Bless, 0 Jahweh, the tents of Shem,"

we find in the next verse the hope expressed that Japheth " may
dwell in the tents of Shem." Whatever else may be meant by this
phrase, it certainly points to a close association of Japheth with
Shem. The phrase is intelligible only on the supposition that
Shem and Japheth represent two subdivisions of some larger unit in
alliance against a common enemy, Canaan; the three-Shem,
Japheth and Canaan-so far from representing the nations of the
known world, would thus turn out to be originally designations for
tribes or clans dividing between them a comparatively restricted
strip of territory. Canaan is of course a perfectly definite geogra-
phical and ethnic term, and if he is to be the servant of Shem and
Japheth, it can only be because he has been or is to be reduced to
servitude and subjection in his own land, and if Shem and Japheth
are the subjectors they too must belong to the district in which
Canaan lies. Shem in the combination stands for the Hebrews
as conquerors of Canaan and whatever may have been meant by
Japheth-presumably some allies of the Hebrews-the Japheth in-
troduced into the poetical fragment of Noah's curse is totally
different from the Japheth who appears in the Ioth chapter in P as
the ancestor of the " distant " nations or groups.
The later stratum of J no longer knows the subdivisions Shem,
Japheth and Canaan. Ham has taken the place of the latter and
in order to reconcile the contradiction between the older poem and
the later story of Ham's conduct towards his father, the gloss is
added in verse i8 " and Ham is the father of Canaan " and again
in verse 22 tlhe words " father of Canaan " after Ham's name.l
The story and the poem do not appear to have originally stood in
any connection with each other, the latter being here introduced
merely as an appropriate climax, just as elsewhere in the Old Testa-
ment we find snatches of old poems attached to later narratives
"bless " (imperative) and the change of elohS Shetm " God of Shem " to ' Ohol
Shem "tents of Shem." Budde (Urgeschichte, p. 73) proposes to read beriukh
and to omit elbhi so that the section would read
,' Blessed of Jahweh is Shem."
The objection to this view (though preferred by Holzinger, /. c., p. go) is
the omission of a word whose presence must be accounted for.
1 This view seems to me more satisfactory than to regard , Ham the father"
as the gloss which, to be sure, would make Canaan the chief actor as in the
original form of the story was the case.
1903.1 JASTROW-THE HAMITES AND SEMITES. 183

having no connection originally with the tale itself.' Whether

the introduction of Ham led to the implied change and to the en-
largement of the conceptions connected with Japheth is, again, a
question on which it is useless to speculate, and we must content
ourselves with the recognition of the wide gulf existing between
Shem, Japheth and Canaan on the one hand as they appear in the
old poem and Shem, Ham and Japheth as found in the later strata
of J and in P. The poem is a fragment of an old composition
reflecting tribal dissensions-probably in Palestine-whereas the
later figures of Shem, Ham and Japheth belong to the period of an
enlarged historical perspective and of more advanced political
organization, when, through contact with the nations around,
interest was aroused in the larger aspects of humanity as a motley
group of peoples and when speculation arose as to the origin of the
great variety of nations into which mankind appeared to be divided.
This speculation woven in with more or less uncertain traditions
and legendary lore finds its first definite expression in a survey of
the nations of special interest to the Hebrews and its final outcome
in such an elaborately constructed list as is furnished by the present
Volkertafel.
IV.
Coming back, now, to this contrast presented by the remains of
an older Volkertafel as embodied in J and the later one in P, we
are permitted to conclude from the fact that the final redactor of J
and P supplemented P's list by data which bear primarily on those
nations with whom the Hebrews came into more or less close con-
tact in the course of their history, and since J (with later editions)
constituted the source of the compiler for such data, J's Volkertafel
would thus represent the natural intermediate stage between an
indifference on the one hand to the determination of the relation-
ships existing between the nations of the known world-the feature
of the period in which Shem, Japheth and Canaan living in close
proximity to one another marked the extent of ethnological inter-
est-and the endeavor, on the other hand, to view this relationship
1 E.g, the so-called '( Song of the Well" (Numbers 21, I8) which certainly
does not fit in with the narrative in which it has been inserted, and the , Song
of Heshbon " (ib. vv. 28-30) which is a song celebrating the triumph of some peo-
ple-hardly the Hebrews-over Moab and which is introduced in connection
with a tale of Israel's victory over Sidon. See Gray's Commentary to Numbers,
pp. 30I, 302.
184 JASTROW-THE HAMITES AND SEMITES. [April 4,

from the broadest standpoint possible to an ancient writer or to a

school of ancient writers with imperfect ethnological conceptions
and still swayed to a certain extent by various subjective factors.
If, therefore, Japheth formed part of J's Volkertafel, we may
feel reasonably certain that it did not concern itself with such
nations as Gomer, Gog, Ashkenaz, Riphath and Togarmah, to
mention only some groups with whom Hebrew history has nothing
to do, but at the most with such groups as Tarshish, Cyprus and
Tubal and Meshech, with whom at a certain period the Hebrews
had at least commercial relations. Leaving this question aside as
impossible of more definite determination, the remarkably inclusive
though compact character of P's list, drawn up from a point of view
which betrays no special interest in Hebrew history, suggests a for-
eign source for the list itself, or at all events points to foreign influ-
ences at work in its composition.
The Priestly Code, being an exilic production, of which at least
the substantial elements were drawn up in Babylonia, it would be
natural to seek in it influences due to the Babylonian environment.
The earlier political relations of their own people with Egypt and
Assyria would be sufficient, with the rise of the historical sense, to
arouse in the minds of Hebrew writers an interest in nations lying
outside of their own immediate circle, but this interest would be
materially strengthened under such conditions as confronted the
Hebrew exiles settled in the Euphrates Valley. With the national
catastrophe putting an end for the time being to their own political
history, the Hebrews were in a peculiarly favorable position for
realizing what the world meant to a world-power such as Babylonia,
which had undertaken to still further develop the legacy of con-
quest and subjugation bequeathed to her by her rival Assyria, had
become in the sixth century. They found themselves in a country
which stood for the ideal of world conquest, and which had taken
decisive steps for many centuries toward the realization of this
ideal. The Assyrians and the Babylonians had come into direct
contact with distant nations to the north, south, east and west, and,
although their relationship to those nations had generally been
hostile, they had, yet, by the encouragement of international com-
merce brought about a closer affiliation between the peoples of the
ancient world, than is ordinarily recognized. It would have been
strange indeed if, under such surroundings, the Hebrews had not
been led to modify and enlarge their views of the complicated
 1903.] JASTROW- THE HAM1TES AND SEMITES. 185

constitution of mankind. The inscriptions of the Assyrian

kings abound in geographical details,l and the interest of
both Babylonians and Assyrians is still further attested by
the numerous geographical lists2 that have been found in
Ashurbanapal's Library and elsewhere. While it is true that these
lists, as a rule, were prepared for practical purposes, in connection
with the campaigns or as tribute lists or as exercises to serve in the
training of scribes, yet a theoretical interest must also in the course
of time have been awakened and some of the lists clearly betray
such interest. What applies to Assyria is true also of Babylonia,
with perhaps this difference: that in a land like the latter in which
culture had reached a higher level than in the north, the theoreti-
cal or, as we might also put it, the scientific interest must, if any-
thing, have been much stronger. That the intellectual class among
the Hebrew writers was acquainted with Babylonian literature
admits scarcely of doubt,3 and whether the compilers of the Priestly
Code actually had some cuneiform models before them to serve as
the bases for such a list as is found in P, it is certainly permissible
and indeed a most reasonable supposition to attribute to Babylo-
nian-Assyrian influence the striking feature of P's list that it deals
so largely with groups of peoples that are of interest to Babylonian-
Assyrian history and of scarcely any at all to Hebrew history. So
of the sons of Japheth, Gomer, Madai, Tubal and Meshech occur
more or less frequently in Assyrian inscriptions,4 and to these we
may add Ashkenaz,6 and perhaps Togarmah.6 Nor can it be
entirely accidental that so many of the groups included under Jap-
heth should be encountered again in the exilic prophet Ezekiel
living in Babylonia. He refers to Gomer, Gog, Javan, Tubal,
1 A glance at the Indices to such works as Schrader's
Keilinschriften und
Geschichtsforschung, Delitzsch's Wo Lag das Paradies. and Winckler.Zim-
mern's Keilinschriften und das Alte Testament will suffice to show how large
the geographical horizon represented by the cuneiform annals is.
2
E.g., Rawlinson, ii, 50-53.
3 See, e.g., D. H. Miller's Ezechiel Studien, pp. 56-62, who gives some inter-
esting illustrations that seem to point conclusively to Ezekiel's acquaintance with
Babylonian literature. See also Winckler's paper, " Der Gebrauch der Keil-
schrift bei den Juden " (Altorientalische Forschungen, iii, I, pp. I65-I74).
4See the Indexes in the works above referred to.
5See above, p. 176, note 2, and also Baer's Libti Danielis, Ezrae et Nehe-
miae (Leipzig, I882), p. ix.
6See Delitzsch's Wo Lag das Paradies, p. 246, and Jeremias' A. T. im Lichte
des Alien Orients, p. I52.
186 JASTROW-THE HA-MITES AND SEMITES. [April4,

Meshech and Togarmah,l and in general this prophet is distin-

guished by the very wide range of his geographical knowledge. We
are, therefore, justified in concluding that Babylonian influence and
contact with the intellectual atmosphere of Babylonia are responsible
for the display of geographical interest and learning in P's Vilkertafel
and in Ezekiel. On the other hand, for the knowledge of Ionia
(Javan) it was not necessary to turn to Babylonia or Assyria, for as
already suggested,2 commercial relations between Palestine and the
islands and districts lying to the west up to distant Tarshish
would account for the knowledge of the chief settlements in the
Greek archipelago and regions beyond. This knowledge may well
have existed among the Hebrews in pre-exilic days, and the view
here maintained by no means implies that all the geographical
learning displayed in P comes from contact with Babylonia, but
merely that, apart from certain direct influences, the enlargement of
the ethnological horizon of Hebrew writers and the impulse to draw
up such a Volkertafel as is found in P can best be accounted for
by the new factor that entered into the intellectual life of the
Hebrews through their settling in the Euphrates Valley. Be this
as it may, the political contact of the Hebrews with those groups
enumerated as sons of Javan did not begin until the period of Greek
conquests in the Orient, and, unless we choose to bring the compi-
lation of P's Volkertafel down beyond the age of Alexander the
Great, which on other grounds is improbable, we are forced to con-
clude that all the nations enumerated under Japheth are to be placed
in the category of peoples with whom the Hebrews up to the time
of the composition of the Priestly Code had practically nothing to
do. The division of Japheth into two branches, (a) Gomer and
offshoots and (b) Javan and offshoots, merely represent from the
point of view here maintained the distant nations dwelling to the
northeast and north on the one hand, and the groups to the
west and northwest on the other, more particularly the inhabitants
of the Grecian islands, and those settled along the coast of Asia
Minor.
V.

Coming to the Hamitic genealogy, the wavering of traditions

See, e.g., chapter 38 of Ezekiel.
2 See
above, p. 177.
1903.] JASTROW--THE HAMITES AND SEMITES. 187

in the case of the sons of Cush makes it difficult to reach any

definite conclusion as to the point of view which guided the com-
piler of P's Volkertafel. Besides the contradictions already pointed
out in the case of Havilah and Sheba,1 it is to be noted that Dedan,
who in P appears in the genealogy of Cush, is, according to Genesis
25, 3, included with Sheba in the genealogy of Abraham. That
in the mind of P, the sons of Cush represent certain nations of south-
ern and central Arabia, with perhaps an inclusion of some groups
lying along the eastern coast, is about all that can be said with any
degree of definiteness.2 That Put in P's list represents primarily
the western coast of Africa, from upper Egypt and southwards to
Somali (though also applied to the corresponding Arabian coast
land), has now been definitely shown.3 We would thus obtain a
point of union for Cush and Put in the circumstance that they rep-
resent remote people in the mind of P, lying to the extreme south.
This might be extended to Mizraim, but certainly Canaan, which
has always been the stumbling block in attempts at recognizing
any system in the grouping of Hamites, cannot be placed among
the nations of the south without our having recourse to the most

'See above, p. I8o.

2 See Jeremias, A. T. im Lichte d. Al/en Orients,
p. I55, and Glaser, Skizze der
Geschichle und Geographie Arabiens, ii, pp. 387-404. It is unnecessary to pass
over to the African coast for the identification of any of the seven groups, though
it is certain that P as well as J, in accord with the general usage of the Old Testa-
ment, regards Cush also as a designation of Nubia. The term seems to be some-
what indefinitely used for the extreme south (or what appeared to be such to Hebrew
writers) without a sharp differentiation between southern Arabia and the corre-
sponding district on the African coast. On Cush as a designation of a part of
Arabia in the Old Testament, and in the Cuneiform Inscriptions, see Winckler,
Aeilinschriften unddas alle Testament,p. 144-I45, summarizingviews expressed
in his essay, ",Musri-Meluhha-Ma'in,"i and ii (Miltheilungen d. Vorderasia-
tischen Gesellschaft, Berlin, I898, pp. 47 sq.), and the same author's Alttestament-
liche Untersuchungen, p. 165. This double nomenclature of Cush may well
be supposed to rest on traditions of an ultimate close relationship between the
settlements in Africa and those of southern (and extending into central) Arabia;
and if there is any value to be attached to the precise form given to the tradi-
tion in the Old Testament, the conclusion might be drawn that the "Arabic "
settlements represent the offshoot, i.e., " sons " of the African Cush-a view that
on the whole seems more plausible than the contrary hypothesis.
3See W. M. Muller's Asien und Europa, chap. vii. That it designated pri-
marily Arabia is the view of Meyer,' Gechichte des Altertums, i, p. 86, while
Glaser, Skizze, etc., ii, pp. 405, 406, proposes southern Arabia and the east coast
of Africa.
188 JASTROW-THE HAMITES AND SEMITES. [April 4,

risky and hazardous conjectures.' It is to be noted that Canaan

occupies the fourth and last place among the sons of Ham, which
of itself raises the suspicion that its addition is due to an after
thought, and that, moreover, P does not follow up the genealogy
of either Mizraim or Canaan, so that the later redactor was
obliged to supply the omission from J. I venture to suggest, there-
fore, that we have in the addition of Canaan the first betrayal of
the compiler's subjective point of view. Under the influence of the
same hostile spirit toward the Canaanites which manifests itself in
the old poem embodied in J, but with the extension of this hostility
to a larger group-to Ham, which was substituted for Canaan-the
compiler of P's list places Canaan in the group now associated
with the accursed nations, but which was originally intended
merely to represent the remote nations of the south, as Japheth rep-
resented remote nations of the west, north and northeast. That
even a learned compiler living in Babylonia, and actuated primarily
by a scholastic aim to draw up an elaborate scheme of a series of
nations and peoples in illustration of his theory that all mankind
can be traced back to a single ancestor, should be subject to the
deeply imbedded hostility existing from the days of the Hebrew
invasion of Palestine between Hebrews and Canaanites is surely not
surprising. Such a limitation of the mental horizon is precisely of
the kind that we would have a right to expect. Removing Canaan
from the group, we would have the Hamites consistently represent-
ing the remote nations of the south, as the Japhethites represent the
remote nations of the west, north and northeast.

VI.

Leaving aside for the moment the problem involved in the

change of sentiment which converted the Hamites into a group
synonymous with the "accursed " nations and turning to the gen-
ealogy of Shem, it is noticeable that the beginning is made with
Elam, lying immediately to the east of Babylonia, and that the group
is closed with Aram, which appears to be a general designation for
the district lying to the west and northwest of Babylonia and
Assyria. We now know that the political relations between Elam

'As, e.g., the view maintained by Dillmann (Genesis, p. 179) that the inclu-
sion of Canaan among the sons of Ham rests upon the knowledge that the
Canaanites came from a southern district.
1903.] JASTROW-THE HAMITES AND SEMITES. 189

and Babylonia date back to a very early period,' and that in fact the
history of the one district is so closely entwined with the fortunes of
the other that it would be quite as natural to group Elam and
Babylonia together as to place Babylonia and Assyria side by side.
Linguistic and ethnic differences between Elamites and Babylonians
would not obtrude themselves to the mind of an ancient writer in
the face of such close political associations as bound Elam and
Babylonia together.
Again, a grouping which begins with Elam as the eastern out-
lying province of Babylonia and ending with Aram as the western
limit would be intelligible from the standpoint of one living within
the district of Babylonia, and this view is confirmed by the intro-
duction of Asshur immediately after Elam. Moreover under Aram,
subdivisions are recorded-Uz, Hul, Gether, Mash2--that play
no part whatsoever in Hebrew history, and could have been of
interest only to Babylonians and Assyrians as representing districts
lying beyond the Euphrates, and with which their armies would
come into contact in the course of expeditions to the west or by
which they might at one time or the other have been menaced.
At all events, Aram designates a miscellaneous group of peoples
whose settlements form the western boundary of Babylonia and
Assyria proper, and so far we would have as the point of union
in the enumeration of the sons of Shem, the settlements in the
immediate environment of Babylonia and Assyria-to the east and
west respectively. This view is not contradicted by the mention
of Arpachshad immediately after Asshur, for however we wish to
account for this name, the last element k-sh-d is certainly in some
way connected with Kashdim-the designation of the Chaldeans.
Of the various explanations offered,' the most plausible is to divide
the word into two elements, a-r-p which may be identified with
Arrapachitis (= Arbakha) and k-sh-d which is Chaldaea, so
that we would have two distinct districts that have by an error been
I See De "
Morgan, , L'Histoire de l'Elam (Revue Archeol., 3em. Serie, Vol.
40, pp. 149-171).
2 For
proposed identifications of Uz, Hul and Mash see Gunkel (Genesis, p.
142)i Holzinger (Genesis, p. 105) and Glaser (Skizze, etc., pp. 411-422). The
situation of Gether is entirely unknown.
3 See Holzinger, Genesis,
p. 105, and Gunkel, l.c., p. 143, who accept
Cheyne's view of the division of the word (Zeits. f. Al1test. IViss., I897, p.
I90), into Arpach and Keshed.
 190 JASTROW-THE HAMITES AND SEMITES. [April4,

merged into one. However this may be, so much is certain that
Arpachshad is still to be sought within or near the district repre-
sented by Babylonia and Assyria. More puzzling than Arpachshad
is the fourth subdivision Lud, and no entirely satisfactory explanation
of its occurrence here has as yet been offered. Certainly Lud in P's
list can have nothing but the name in common with the Lud that
occurs in Isaiah 66, 19, and in Ezekiel 27, io and 30, 5-which is
clearly Lydia in Asia Minor-and unless we assume (as I am in-
clined to do) that the introduction of Lud in Genesis 10, 22 is due
to an error-
Arpachshad wO-Lud
being here (verse 22) superinduced by
Arpachshad ya-lad
in verse 241- we must provisionally accept the possibility of there
having been a district Lud between the Babylonian-Assyrian dis-
trict and what P understood by Aram. For the present, there are
no substantial reasons for questioning on this account the thesis
here maintained that in P the Shemites represent Babylonia and
Assyria and the groups adjacent, in contrast to the Japhethites and
Hamites who represent the remote nations in the various directions
of the compass. We may, therefore, conclude that P's list, taken
as a whole and leaving aside more or less obscure details which do
not, however, upset the general conclusion, betrays the learned
compiler whose geographical horizon has been enlarged by becom-
ing subject to his Babylonian environment. In addition to gather-
ing some of his geographical knowledge from Babylonian docu-
ments or through intercourse with the learned scribes of Babylonia,
his general point of view in his grouping of nations has regard for
interests affecting Babylonia and Assyria, as in the case of the
northern and northeastern branches of the Japhethites, or is deter-
mined, as in his grouping of Shemites, by his residence in Babylonia.
The purely scholastic character of the list is interfered with only
by the addition of Canaan to the Hamitic group, the introduction
1Wiedemann supposes (Geschichte Aegyptens, p. 24), that Lud is the
original form of Rut which with'a ,' denominative " ending-i.e., Ruten-occurs
in Egyptian inscriptions as the designation of Syria and Palestine. See however
the objections to this conjecture in Schrader's Cuneiform Inscriptions and the
Old Testament, i, p. 99. Nor is Jensen's proposition to read Lubdi (adopted by
Jeremias, A. T. imn Lichte des alten Orients, p. I70), at all satisfactory.
1903 ] JASTROW-THE HAMITES AND SEMITES. 191

of which is due to the hostility existing between Hebrews and

Canaanites.1 Taking up now this departure on the part of the
compiler of P from the scholastic principles that guided him in
drawing up the list, it is clear that he could only have been led to
destroy the harmony of his scheme by placing Canaan under Ham
instead of, according to their proper position, next to Aram, if the
view had become general that the Hamites represent the " accursed
nations.
VII.
To justify this assumption, which involves a radical change from
the original conception of the Hamites as the nations of the remote
south, it is necessary to find other evidence for it. Such evidence
is forthcoming not merely in the narrative which substitutes Ham
for Canaan, but also in J's grouping so far as his Vilkertafel has
been preserved.
We have seen that J enlarges the curse originally pronounced
upon Canaan into a general denunciation of a larger group whom
he calls Hamites. At the same time, he does not venture to alter
the ancient tradition entirely but makes a compromise by including
Canaan under Ham. Whatever the source may have been whence
J derived the name of Ham, for him this youngest on of Noah has
clearly come to be synonymous with those nations which are par-
ticularly obnoxious to him. Let us see whom J places in this group.
We have in the first place Nimrod whom he connects with Cush as
against P who does not mention Nimrod, but who places seven other
nations, representing groups settled in Arabia, among the sons of
Cush.2 Nimrod, however, as verses io and II clearly show, is in
J's list the representative of Babylonia and Assyria-nay the founder
of these empires, in marked contradistinction therefore to P who, as

1It is only proper to note that the view which assumes Canaan's place among
the Hamites to be due to feelings of natural hostility was maintained by older
writers as, e.g., Sprenger (Geographie Arabiens, p. 294 seq.) who lays strong
emphasis on the point, but since the days of Dillmann has been generally aban-
doned. The attempts, however, that have been made to account for the place
assigned to Canaan are singularly inadequate. Recent writers either ignore the
point entirely or content themselves, like Holzinger (Genesis, p. 96), with the
suggestion that the inclusion of Canaan among Hamites is merely characteristic
of the prevailing ignorance among the Hebrews in matters pertaining to
ethnology.
2 See
above, p. 187.
192 JASTROW-THE HAMITES AND SEMITES. [April 4,

we have seen, places these nations among the sons of Shem. If

Nimrod is a Hamite, it follows that Babylonians and Assyrians are
Hamites and the attitude towards Nimrod implied in thus placing
him among the Hamites is clearly indicated by the gloss (verse 9)
Ihe was a mighty hunter beforeJahweh "
where the words "before Jahweh" indicate as is now generally
recognized by commentators1 " in defiance of Jahweh," implying
an opposition of some kind to Jahweh or if that is going too far, as,
at all events, carrying on a pursuit which was not pleasing in the eyes
of Jahweh. Whatever the original force of the phrase "mighty
hunter "-concealing perhaps some reference to an ancient myth-
may have been, to the one who introduced the gloss in J's list of
nations Nimrod was a conqueror, a "hunter" of spoil, as it were,
fired by the ambition to extend his dominion. As a conqueror he,
therefore, appears in the following verses where the enlargement of
his kingdom is referred to and the extent of Babylonia and Assyria
is indicated by the mention of the chief cities of both districts. To
J, therefore, the chief if not the only interest attaching to Cush lies
in his being the ancestor through Nimrod of Babylonia and As-
syria and whatever other nations-if any-were included by him
under Cush. His motive for making Babylonia and Assyria descend-
ants of Cush was not geographical position, nor is it at all likely
that he had in mind a district by the name of Cush to the east of
Babylonia whence in his opinion Babylonians and Assyrians came2
-though it may be admitted that the notice rests ultimately on a
confusion between two Cushs3-but he was actuated solely by
the desire to place Babylonians and Assyrians among the Hamites

1See, e.g., Budde, Utgeschichte, p. 393; Holzinger, Genesis, p. 99. Renan,

too, explained the phrase as indicating opposition to Jahweh. Compare also the
phrase " a great city to God " (Jonah, 3 3), equivalent to a '"godless city."
2 So
eg., Winckler, Alttes/amentliche Untersuchungen, p. 149. Cf. Gunkel,
Genesis, pp. 8I-82.
3 For our
purposes it is immaterial whether Cush in the mind of the writer
who added the section about Nimrod meant the African or the Arabic Cush; and
even though some faint tradition of a third ,"Babylonian " Cush (i.e.,the Cassites)
underlies the tale, it is certain that the writer has the same Cush in mind as in
P (verse 7). Delitzich's view ( [Vo Lag das Paradies, p. 52 seq., and pp. 127-
129) of a close historical connection between the "'Babylonian " and , African "
Cush is untenable, though he correctly places the seven subdivisions of Cush
in Arabia and not in Africa. See above, p. 187.
1903.1 JASTROW-THE HAM1TES AND SEMITES. 193

under his general view that the latter represent the accursed nations.
If we turn to Hebrew history, we will find in the relations exist-
ing between the Hebrews and the Babylonians and Assyrians the
all-sufficient motive for this hostility. Babylonia which exercised
a control over Syria and Palestine at a very early date as the Tel
El Amarna tablets show,1 until she was obliged to yield to Egypt
and to concentrate her efforts on the endeavor to check the growing
power of Assyria, must have been regarded as a natural menace to
the Canaanitish settlers in Palestine even before the Hebrews entered
the land. The latter therefore inherited from their predecessors a
feeling of hostility towards Babylonia and not differentiating Baby-
lonia sharply from Assyria, the bitler feeling towards both would
be accentuated by the subsequent course of events.' From the
ninth century on, the two Hebrew kingdoms were exposed to fre-
quent attacks from the military expeditions undertaken by the
Assyrian conquerors. The fall of the northern kingdom in 722
B.C. and the practical subjection of the southern by Sennacherib
and his successors further strengthened this hostility, which found
a forcible expression in the utterances of the pre-exilic prophets
and is reflected in the grouping of Babylonia and Assyria with the
" accursed " nations in J. It is not necessary for our purposes to
assume that the form given to the feelings of resentment against
Babylonia and Assyria actually presupposes the destruction of the
southern kingdom, for long before this catastrophe the feelings
must have been sufficiently strong to prompt a writer to regard
Babylonians and Assyrians as "accursed " in the eyes of Jahweh,
so that the little section inserted in J verses 8-12 may be, like J's
list, of pre-exilic date; but we may well suppose the post-exilic
redactor who combined J with P to have been still further incensed
at the recollection of the havoc wrought by Assyria and Babylonia,
the one in bringing about the downfall of the northern kingdom
and the other the extinction of political life in the south, to prompt
him to preserve from J-in its final form-the notice which groups
1 See Winckler, und das alte Testament, pp. 23-25 and 192
Keilinschriften
seq.
2 See for the
general relationship between Babylonia and Assyria, and the two
Hebrew kingdoms, Winckler, Ke ilinschriftel und das alte Testament, pp. 258-
280; also for the cuneiform texts bearing on the subject Schrader's Cuneiform
Inscriptions and the 0. T., i, 176-ii, 59, and Winckler, Keilinschriftliches
Textbuch zum alien Testament (2d ed., Leipzig, 1903), pp. 14-55.
PROC. AMER. PHILOS. SOC. XLIII. 176. M. PRINTED JULY 13, 1904.
194 JASTROW-THE HAMIITES AND SEMITES. [April4,

these two peoples among those whom Jahweh himself has cursed-
much in the same spirit that leads to the retention (Genesis I9, 30-
38) of the scandalous story of the origin of Moab and Ammon-
two other bitter- enemies of Israel-from an incestuous union of
Lot with his daughters, as a bit of tribal satire, calculated to expose
these peoples to the humiliation and contempt of their rivals.'
After Nimrod, we find Egypt introduced in J. Among the
Hamites we have seen that the grouping of Egypt with Cush
and Put in P fits in with the latter's general view that the
Hamites represent the nations of the remote south, but J for whom
Cush is neither southern Arabia nor Nubia does not appear to have
had such a scheme in mind, and it is in keeping with the spirit of
the narrative at the close of the gth chapter that J's motive in add-
ing Egypt to Babylonia and Assyria among the Hamites was again
the desire to illustrate the truth and the justification of the view
that the sons of Ham are the "accursed" nations. It is only
necessary to mention the name of Egypt in order to conjure up the
picture of the hostility towards it that crops out in every section of
the Old Testament. The recollection of Egyptian oppression is so
strong in the Old Testament as to become almost a part of the
Hebrew religion. An old nomadic sheep-offering festival com-
bined with an agricultural spring festival, the latter adopted by
the Hebrews from the Canaanites, becomes associated in the Pen-
teteuchal codes2 with the deliverance from the hated yoke of
Egypt. The Decalogue begins in both versions that we possess
with the description of Jahweh as the god who brought his people
out of Egypt (Ex. 20, 2; Deut. 5, 6), and according to the
Deuteronomistic version or recension of the Decalogue, the most
characteristic institution of Judaism-the Sabbath as a day of rest
1So iccording to the best of the modern commentators(see iolzinger, Genesis,
p. 158). Somewhat different is Gunkel's view (Genesis, pp. 197-198), who
believes that the story was originally told as an illustration of the favor and grace
of the Deity in saving Lot as the ancestor of Moab and Ammon from the general
destruction and in providing for this unusual method of securing offspring.
Granting this, it is still evident that in the mind of the Hebrew writers, the
story assumes a lowering ani contemptuous aspect-to be compared with the
bitter taunts and satires to be found in ancient Arabic poems when they deal
with tribal hostilities. See e.g., Goldziher, Muhammedanische Studien (Halle,
I888), I, pp. 43-50.
2See Baentsch, Corn.to Exodus, pp. 88-91; Robertson Smith, Religion of
the Semiles, pp. 445 seq.
1903.] JASTROW-THE HAMITES AND SEMITES. 195

from all labor-is instituted to serve as a reminder to the people

of the conditions under which they lived in Egypt (Deut. 5, 15).
If we turn to the Prophets, we find Egypt invariably associated
with cruelty, deceit and oppression.l Pharaoh becomes a type of
the persecutor and of the oppressor. Egypt is therefore placed like
Babylonia and Assyria in the same category as Canaan-with the
" accursed ' races. It so happens, as already pointed out, that the
position of Egypt accords with the geographical scheme that P adopts
for the Hamitic nations; and while, in view of this, we are not
justified in attributing to this compiler a motive of national hatred
in placing Egypt with Cush, J, who does not appear to have had
such a geographical system and for whom Ham is merely the larger
term for Canaan which permits him to place under one category a
whole series of nations who were hostile to his people, and who in
his opinion are responsible for the dark pages in pre-exilic
Hebrew history, is evidently actuated by such motives of national
hatred in associating Egypt with Canaan; and as already intimated,
the compiler who combined J with P, likewise, no longer occupies
the objective and more purely scholastic standpoint of P, and takes
over therefore from J the extended notices about Egypt and Canaan
in order to point out in detail all those who belong to the " ac-
cursed " sons of Ham.

VIII.
This spirit of hostility crops out again in the inclusion of the
Capthorites (verse 14) where the addition of the gloss "whence
came the Philistines " reveals the animus of the compiler. Cap-
thor, as Prof. W. Max Miller2 has shown, is a term of indefinite
character but which certainly included Cilicia and adjacent parts
of the Asia Minor coast, and even a writer of so limited a range of
ethnological and geographical knowledge as J, granting that he no
longer knew the exact distinction of Capthor,3 could hardly have
supposed the Capthorites to belong in the same category with the
1 It is sufficient to refer to such
passages as Isaiah 1I, 15, and chap. I9; Eze-
kiel, chap. 30; Jeremiah, chap. 46; Amos 8, 9.
2Asien und Europa, p. 347, supplemented by the same writer's Sludien
zur vorderasiatischen Geshichte, ii (Mitteilungen der vorderasiatischen Gesell-
schaft, I900), pp. 6-1I.
3 That in accord with
prevailing views or traditions he identified Capthor with
Crete is, on the whole, more than likely.
196 JASTROW-THE HAMITES AND SEMITES. [April4,

subdivisions of Egypt, whose mention precedes that of Capthor.1

Moreover, the position of the Capthorites at the close of verse 14
suggests (as we have seen to be the case in other instances of nations
placed at the end of a series of groups), a later addition to what
precedes, and the gloss indicating the origin of the Philistines
in accord with the tradition recorded in Amos2 and Jeremiah,s
and which is also found in Deuteronomy,4 unmistakably reveals the
purpose of the addition. Next to the Canaanites, whom the Hebrews
had to drive out before they could acquire a foothold in Palestine,
the Philistines constituted the most serious obstacle to the growth of
an independent Hebrew state. Prior to the days of Saul, we have
three distinct periods of Philistine aggressiveness with disastrous
results to the Hebrews (Judges chapter i ; Judges chapter I3;
r Samuel chap. 4). Hostilities continued with changing fortunes
through the days of Saul and David. Solomon appears to have held
them in check, but after his death they regained their independence
and continued to be a source of annoyance to Israel if no longer a
serious menace. The Capthorites, accordingly, as identical in the
mind of the one who added the gloss with the Philistines are ranked
like Canaan, Babylonia, Assyria and Egypt with the "accursed "
nations, who were assigned this character because of the bitter feel-
ings of hostility of the Hebrews towards them. The " accursed "
nations thus turn out to be the enemies of the people of Jahweh,
whose opposition is looked upon as a defiance of Jahweh himself.
Outside of the addition of Capthorim in verse I4, the subdivis-
ions of Egypt, enumerated in the verse in question, obscure as
some of the names are, are introduced as an exhibition of learning
from purely scholastic motives, which J is also willing to display
where they do not interfere with his nationalistic likes and dislikes.
On the other hand, it is in all probabilities a personal interest that
is displayed in the enumeration of the clans constituting the sub-
divisions of the Canaanites. This enumeration is not set forth in
the form of a genealogical chain and the proof that the list itself

Verses I3-14a. Of the six subdivisions of Egypt, only two, Lehabim=-

Lybians, and Pathrusim = Upper Egypt, are certain, but that the other four, all
probably more or less corrupt forms, represent sections or nomes of Egypt is gen-
erally admitted. For further attempts at identifications see Holzinger, Genesis,
pp. 101-102.
2Amos 9, 7. 3 Jeremiah 47, 4.
4Deut. 2, 23.
1903.] JASTROW-THE HAMITES AND SEMITES. 197

represents a later gloss, incorporated however with J and not belong-

ing to P, is furnished by the gentilic form (Jebusite, Amorite, etc.)
given to the nine Canaantish subdivisions.1 The subdivisions
themselves further emphasize and illustrate the point of view from
which the Canaanites are regarded in J. Of the nine subdivisions,
four (Jebusite, Amorite, Girgasite, Hivite) belong to the seven
nations of Palestine, with whom marriage is forbidden in the Pen-
tateuchal codes,2 and with whom no alliance of any kind is to be
made; and since it is likely that the Hamathites, referred to in
Gen. io, I8, stand for the Hittites of Deuteronomy 7, 2, we would
have five of the ordinary seven subdivisions of Canaanites enume-
rated in this addition to J. The author of this addition, well
acquainted with the various Canaanitish settlements in Palestine,
introduces these five because of his special interest in that part of
Palestine with which Hebrew history is especially concerned, and
which was promised to them by Jahweh as their future possession
(cf. Gen. I5, 18-20). In adding the Arkites, Sinites, Arvadites and
Zemarites, which play a less conspicuous part in Hebrew history,
he reveals his learning and scholastic interest, whereas on the other
hand verse 15, which reads

"And Canaan begat Sidon his first born and Heth,"

reveals the original force attached to Canaan as embracing the

Phcenicians as well as those settled in the interior. The style of
this verse shows that it belongs to the original J document, though
there are reasons for believing that the verse has not been preserved
in its original form. If Sidon is mentioned as " the first born "
we would expect other sons to have been included in the genealogy;
and, again, the words " and Heth " impress one as a later addition
of the same nature as the additions at the end of verse i43 and
elsewhere. The suspicion is, therefore, raised that " Heth " has
been attached to Canaan from the same motive of nationalistic senti-

1Jebusite, Amorite, Girgasite, Hivite, Arkite, Sinite, Arvadite, Zemarite,

Hamathite. The traditions in regard to the forms of these names seem to be
pretty definitely established, except in the case of Sinite, for which the Greek
version has Ihasennite and the Aramaic (Targum Onkelos, ed, Berliner, Berlin,
1884) Antusite.
2See e.g., Ex. 34, I -I6; Deut. 7, 1-3. Cf. also Gen. 28, I-8-a narrative
that well reflects the bitterness of the feeling toward the Canaanites.
3See above, pp. 179, I88, I96.
198 JASTROW-THE HAMITES AND SEMITES. [April 4,

ment which relegates all enemies of Israel who hindered the advance
of the latter among the "accursed " nations. It is needless for
our purposes to enter upon the vexed question whether the Bene
Heth, settled in southern Palestine, are to be identified with the
Hittites in the northeast, where Hamath formed one of the centres
of their settlements.1 The Hebrew writers, as is quite evident,
considered them identical, and although those in the south enter
into friendly relations with the early Hebrew invaders, as illustra-
ted by the traditions regarding Abraham's dealings with the Bene
Heth,2 those in the north are included among the enemies with
whom no alliances of any kind are to be made. The term " Heth "
may indeed have been introduced by the one who added it to Sidon
to include the entire interior of Palestine, which a later glossator
not satisfied with so vague an expression amplified by the specifi-
cation of the nine subdivisions in verse i6-i8.3 However this
may be, the addition of Heth and the further specification of nine
subdivisions, whether originally intended as specifications of
Hittites or of Canaanites, are prompted and retained by the desire
to make it perfectly clear that the groups with which the Hebrews
were to make no entangling alliances of any kind, whether social
or political, belong to the " accursed " Hamites.
This same motive is further illustrated in the indication of the
boundaries of the Canaantish settlements. Taking in the Phoeni-
cian coast to Gerar, or according to the variant to Gaza,4 he car-
ries the eastern boundary to Sodom and Gomorrah. I venture to
suggest that this specification is not prompted by purely scholastic
interests, but from a desire to leave no doubt, on the one hand, as
to the inclusion of the hated Philistines, represented by Gerar and
Gaza, among the Hamites, and, on the other, to point out by the
1That the term (, Hittites " 'was used to embrace large groups of peoples that
entered Syria and Palestine from the mountain districts of the north and north-
west is now generally recognized. The vagueness of the nomenclaturecomplicates
the historical and ethnological problems, but it may be said that what evidence
is available does not militate against regarding the northern and southern Hit-
tites of Palestine and Syria as belonging to the same general group.
2 Genesis,
chap. 23.
3 See above, p. I97.
4 Verse 19. It matters little whether we take Gerar or Gaza as the gloss,
though the former, about six miles farther south of Gaza, being less well known,
probably represents the original reading, to which a glossator added as a memo-
randum ('Gaza," as a better known boundary of Philistine settlements.
1903.] JASTROW-THE HAMITES AND SEMITES. 199

introduction of Sodom and Gomorrah that the inhabitants of this

district as well as two other peoples particularly obnoxious to the
Hebrews, namely, Moab and Ammon, whose origin, according to
the libellous tradition recorded in Genesis 19, 30-38, is dis-
tinctly connected with Sodom and Gomorrah, also belong to the
" accursed " nations. This tale follows immediately upon the story
of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, evidently with the
intention of associating Moabites and Ammonites,-whose hostile
relations to the Hebrews are illustrated in many a page of the Old
Testament,-with wickedness and shameful immorality. However
this may be, Sodom and Gomorrah are for J, as for the Hebrew
prophets, the type of all that is "accursed,"' and for this reason
those who dwelt in this region are singled out as belonging with
peculiar appropriateness to the sons of Ham.
Naturally, there are innumerable details in the early history of the
Hebrews, as also in the later periods, which escape us so that it is
no longer possible to determine the full extent to which this motive
of national dislike influenced the school of writers, the result of
whose work is to be seen in J's list as modified by later additions,
insertions and glosses, but enough has been shown to justify the
proposition that in contradistinction to P, who betrays not only a
much broader geographical and ethnographic knowledge but also
greater objectivity, J and the school that he represents are largely,
if not completely, under the spell of the character given to Ham
at the close of the 9th chapter of Genesis. For J, Ham is not
an ethnic unit nor a designation for a group of peoples settled in a
certain section of the known world, but a kind of ethnological
purgatory to which all those nations are assigned,-Babylonians,
Assyrians, Egyptians, Canaanites, Philistines, Sodomites, Gomor-
rites,-who have merited this fate in the mind of the writer by their
hostility to Jahweh's people, and as the cause of the misfortunes,
hardships, struggles and catastrophes in the career of the Hebrews.
On a supposition of this kind we can account for the jumble of such
heterogeneous groups as Canaanites in Palestine, Egyptians in the
South, Babylonians and Assyrians in the East, and Philistines in
the West into one category, unless, indeed, we are prepared to
commit exegetical suicide by assuming that no principle whatso-

'Cf., e.g., Isaiah i, 10; 3, 9; 13, 9g. Jer. 23, 14. Amos, 4, ii, and Zeph.
2, 9, where Moab and Ammon are compared to Sodom and Gomorrah.
200 JASTROW--TfE HAMITES AND SEMITES. [April 4,

ever presided over the grouping. The view here advanced of the
different conceptions regarding Ham by the J-group of writers from
that which is found in P also accounts in a rational and, I believe,
in a satisfactory way for the manifest contradictions between J and P
as, e.g., the grouping of Asshur with Cush by the former and with
Shem by the latter.
IX.
In conclusion, a few words about the genealogy of Shem in
J and P, which will further illustrate the thesis here main-
tained. If Ham in the mind of the nationalistic J is the type of
the "accursed" son, Shem appears with equal distinctness as
the favored one. This view is clearly brought out in the blessing
over Shem (Gen. 9, 25-27). The double mention of Shem'already
shows this, and whether we read with Gratz and Gunkel,'
" Bless, O Jahweh, the tents of Shem,"

or with Budde and Holzinger,

" Blessed of Jahweh is Shem,"

there can be no doubt of the preference shown for Shem by the J

group of writers to whom this blessing belongs. The source and
original force associated with Shem2 is as obscure as that of Ham.
Back of both names no doubt lies a mass of traditions and possibly
also myths which have been lost, but when once in some way the
favorable conception in regard to Shem had become current it would
be natural for J to make the endeavor to trace the origin of his
own people to this favorite son. Such is the purpose of the rather

'See above, p. I8I seq.

2Shem signifying "fame," "distinction," has been compared with Aryan
" ruler," " noble," as a designation of the favorite group (see Holzinger, Genesis,
p. 92), but all such explanations are open to the objection that they assume the
introduction of the name to be due to the Hebrew writers, whereas it is evident
that both Shem and Ham (which on the same supposition has been explained
as ' hot," i.e., the southerners' of Holzinger, 1. c.) are terms adopted by Hebrew
writers and belong presumably to a much earlier age than their use in the Vol-
kertafel. There is much to be said in favor of the view which regards both
names as designations of old deities, though this view, likewise, is open to objec-
tions which cannot easily be set aside. See Hommel, Altisraelitische Ueberlie-
ferung, pp. 47 and 115.
 1903.] JASTROW -THE HAMITES AND SEMITES. 201

awkwardly constructed 2Ist verse of the Ioth chapter.' The curi-

ous phrase defining Shem as "(the father of all the sons of Eber"
reveals the existence of an earlier' tradition, which traced the
Hebrews back to Eber. In view of this, one is tempted to conjec-
ture that in an older form of the blessing at the end of the gth
chapter, Eber took the place now occupied by Shem, so that the
original personages concerned in the blessing and curse were Eber,
Canaan and Japheth, subsequently enlarged to Shem, Ham and
Japheth. However this may be, it is interesting and of some impor-
tance to observe that when Eber was first associated with Shem, the
former was made the son of the latter, whereas in the more scholastic
ethnological scheme devised by P, the relationship of Eber to Shem
was altered into that of greatgrandfather and greatgrandson.'
How far this view already prevailed in pre-exilic days among some
groups of writers it is, of course, impossible to say. Of the four3
sons of Shem in P, Elam, Asshur, Arpachshad and Aram, it would
appear that Elam is used as an inclusive term to embrace Babylo-
nia. If this be correct we might have in this use of Elam an indi-
cation of the date of P's VoZkerlafel,inasmuch as such a usage would
point to the absorption of Babylonia by a power advancing from
Elam. This power would, of course, be none other than Persia, and
the use of Elam here as ihcluding Babylonia would thus force us to
the conclusion that P's list belongs to the close of the exilic period,
subsequent to Cyrus' conquest of Babylonia in 539 B.C. The
theory, it must be admitted, encounters an obstacle in Arpachshad,
if, as seems plausible, the latter embodies a reference to Chaldaea,
since it would involve the further supposition of a differentiation
on the part of Hebrew writers between Chaldaea and Babylonia.
One can understand and indeed recognize the necessity of such a
differentiation from the standpoint of one who, while placing Baby-
1 It reads
literally ' and to Shem, there was born even he the father of all
the sons of Eber, the brother of Japheth the elder." Then follows " the sons of
Shem are Elam, Asshur, etc." Comparing the beginning of verse 21 with the
beginning of verse 25, , and to Eber were born two sons, etc.," we should expect
the enumeration of the sons of Shem immediately after the words " and to Shem
there was born."
2Shem,
Arpachshad, Shelah, Eber (verse 24).
3 Omitting Lud, which is a
hopeless stumbling block (cf. Holzinger, Genesis,
p. I05), and which as has above been suggested (p. 19o) may have slipped in
here through confusion with yalad in verse 24.
202 JASTROW-THE HAMITES AND SEMITES. [April4,

lonia and Assyria with the genealogy of Ham through Nimrod, the
grandson of Ham, yet shares the common tradition which traces
Eber the ancestor of the Hebrews (or Terah the descendant of
Eber) to Ur-Kasdim, i.e., to Chaldaea. Hence J, despite his hos-
tility to Assyria and Babylonia, admits Arpachshad,which cer-
tainly stands in some relationship to Ur-Kasdim, among the She-
mites. Since P, however, places Asshuror Assyria with the sons of
Shem, he does not share J's view of Assyria or Babylonia, and
there would be no reason why he should either omit Babylonia or
specificallydifferentiateChaldseafromBabylonia,unlessit be, indeed,
that he includes Arpachshad in obedience to the tradition which
associated the latter with the home of his people. On the whole,
this appearsto be the more plausible view, for while P, as we have
seen, manifests his purely scholastic interests to an astonishing
degree, he yet is not entirely free from the naturalspirit of national
likes and disl.ikes,and at all events would be inclined to embody
in his list current traditions regardingthe origin of his people, even
where such an embodiment might be superfluousor render his
scheme somewhatambiguous. Assuming then that Elam includes
Babylonia, and that Arpachshad is Chaldaea,the Shemites, accord-
ing to P, would representthe groupsliving in the district to which
the Hebrewstraced their origin, Elam, Babylonia, Assyriaand Chal-
daea,and the groups immediately to the west and northwest,classed
by P underthe general designation of Aram. We have no meansof
determining whether J's list also included Aram among the sons of
Shem, but there is also no positive evidence against it. If it did,
the genealogy of Aram was probably identical with the one pre-
served in P, or at all events did not contain sufficientlyimportant
derivations to warrantthe compiler who combined J with P in
extracting anything from J's list. So much seems certain, that J's
chief interest lay in Arpachshad,because of the supposedconnec-
tion between this district and Ur-Kasdim or Chaldaeaas the home
of the Hebrews, and J's interest here was sufficientlypronounced
to induce him to carry down the line of Arpachshad in its two
branches, Eber-Peleg and Eber-Joktan, the former representing a
northern groups the latter a southern, much as the Arabs carry the
genealogies of their clans to a northern and southern ancestor.1
1 See Wiistenfeld's
Genealogische Tabellen der Arabischen Stamme und
Familien (Gottingen, I852).
1903.] JASTROW-THE HAMITES AND SEMITES. 203

Of J's double list, only the Eber-Joktan, the southern branch, has
been preserved in the Ioth chapter,l the northern branch being
omitted by the compiler of J and P, because of its preservation in
the P document in the IIth chapter, verses I6-26. The groups
thus included in J's genealogy cf Shemites would be limited to those
descended from Arpachshad and Aram, or since Arpachshad rep-
resents on the one hand the Hebrews as the descendants of the north-
ern branch of Eber-Peleg, and the Arabs on the other hand as the
descendants of the southern branch of Eber-Joktan, the Shemites
would be limited to groups in the immediate environment of the
Hebrews. The point of view is apparently that of the Hebrew
settlements to the east of the Jordan, Eber-Joktan representing the
southern groups and Aram the northern and northwestern, with
Eber-Peleg occupying the central position. Here too, therefore,
we find J presenting a contrast to P, who, standing for arnenlarged
geographical and ethnological view, begins his enumeration with
Elam to the East and passes on in a westerly and then northwesterly
direction, which leads him to include Chaldaea, Babylonia and
Assyria and to end with Aram. The point of view here suggests
Babylonia or Chaldaea as the home of P, or at all events as the central
seat of the Shemites, with Elam constituting the eastern and Aram
the western limit and environment. Consistent, moreover, with
his view of the Hamites as the designation of groups settled in the
remote south, he excludes those peoples included by J in the Eber-
Joktan branch of Arpachshad from the Shemites, and as the Eber-
Peleg list of P in the i th chapter shows, P limits the Shemite
branch of Arpachshad to the Eber-Peleg or northern division.
The general scheme in P's iu/kertafelis thus quite clearly based
on a geographical distribution into three zones, Japheth represent-
ing the remote groups to the west, north and northeast, the Hamites
representing the remote nations in the south, while the Shemites
represent those in the immediate environment.of the Hebrews from
the point of view of a writer who, living in Babylonia, is influenced
both by conditions prevailing in his days, by the tradition which
traced the Hebrews to Chaldoea, as well as by the fact of the later
settlements of the Hebrews to the east of the Jordan and in Pales-
tine proper. Taking all these factors together, to which we ought
perhaps to add the inclusion of Babylonia under Elam as due to
IVerses 26-29.
204 JASTROW-THE HAMITES AND SEMITES. [April 4,

special circumstances, the Shemites are for P the groups that live
in districts in which, at one time or the other, the Hebrews had
settled, or which represent districts adjacent to those settlements.
The Shemites are, therefore, the groups that are " near " to the
Hebrews as against the Japhethites and Hamites who are " remote."
Again, while as we have seen P is actuated by large geographical
views and displays considerable ethnological knowledge set forth in
a scholastic spirit, it is natural that when he comes to the group to
which his own people belongs he should show some traces also of a
nationalistic spirit. His general point of view in regard to the She-
mites as representing those nations which are adjacent to the Hebrews,
or " near " them, may be put down to the credit of his nationalistic
spirit, while the departure from his scheme in including Canaan
among the Hamites instead of placing them with the "near"
nations or Shemites may represent a trace of the influence of the
spirit of hostility towards Canaanites which controls J, though it
is also possible that the addition of Canaan in verse 6 is due to the
compiler who combined J with P, and who is actuated by the same
spirit as is J.
X.
In sharp contrast, both as to geographical views and ethnographi-
cal knowledge and general spirit, stands J and the group of writers to
which he belongs or who follow in his path. Showing distinct
traces of the older view which limits the geographical horizon to
three groups, Shem (or perhaps Eber1), Canaan and Japheth, all
dwelling within the confines of Hebrew settlements in Palestine, J,
though representing an enlarged view in substituting Ham for
Canaan (and Shem for Eber), and in extending Japheth to include
remote nations with which Hebrew history has nothing to do,
arranges his Volkertafel entirely from the Hebrew point of view.
Though apparently agreeing with P in his definition of Japhethites
it is doubtful whether J's list of sons and descendants of Japheth
was as extensive as P's, and at all events the Japhethites did not
represent the geographically remote nations but rather those that
were historically remote, toward which a writer interested primarily
1 In view of the
importance which Eber plays as the ancestor of the two
groups, Eber-Peleg and Eber-Joktan, it would indeed appear as already suggested
(p. 201) that a tradition was current which made him rather than Shem the an-
cestor of the groups allied with the Hebrews.
1903.1 JASTROW-THE HAMITES AND SEMITES. 205

and, indeed, exclusively in Hebrew history would be wholly

indifferent. The Japhethitesare, accordingly, no longer " a group
dwelling in the tents of Shem," but quite outside of these tents.
More marked is the contrast between J and P in regard to the
Hamites. While here, too, it happensthat from P's point of view
Egypt falls into the category of the Hamites, still the whole char-
acter of Ham's genealogy in P shows that this is done because of
the agreement with P's definition of Hamites as embracing the
" remote ' nations of the south. In the mind of J, however, the
Hamites take the place of Canaan, the "accursed " son of Noah,
and the enlargement of Canaan to Ham furnishes him with the
opportunity of adding to Canaan a whole series of nations who,
becauseof the mischief they wrought at one time or the other in
Hebrew history, merit the fate of being cast into the purgatoryof
the " accursed" nations. From this point of view, J includes
Egypt among the Hamites and adds to Canaanand Egypt, the Baby-
lonians and Assyrians, as well as the Philistines, while subsequent
writers, actuatedby the same spirit as J, are at pains to specify the
subdivisions of the Canaanites,and with a view of leaving no pos-
sible loophole for such types of " wickedness " as Sodom and
Gomorrah,even indicate the exact boundaries of the Canaanitish
settlements. The mention of Sodom and Gomorrah,even if the
view above set forth that the names are intended to include Moab
and Ammon be not accepted, shows too clearly to admit of any
doubt the picture in J's mind of the characterand nature of the
Hamites.
Coming to Shem, there is a closer approachto be observed be-
tween the views of J and P and yet even here there are some strik-
ing contrasts. Not only is P's list of Shemites on the whole more
inclusive, since he makes them extend from Elam in the East to
Aram and Palestine in the West, though on the other hand he ex-
cludes the southernArabs who in J represent the southern branch
of Eber-Joktan,but his historical standpoint is also larger than that
of J, since he embodies in his list not only the tradition of the
original home of the Hebrews but drawsthe proper conclusion from
this tradition that the inclusion of Arpachshador Chaldaeaamong
the sons of Shem carries with it Babylonia (including Elam) and
Assyria. J in all probabilities included Aram by the side of
Arpachshadamong the sons of Shem, but his point of view is that
of one who is exclusively interested in Hebrew history. The im-
206 JASTROW-THE HAMITES AND SEMITES. [April 4,

portance of Shem lies for him in the fact that Shem is "the father
of all the children of Eber." For him the "remote" nations of
the south, with whom Hebrew history is as little concerned-barring
the relationship between Judaea and southern Arabia reflected in
the legends of King Solomon's dealings with the Queen of Sheba1-
as the "remote" nations of the north and east represented by
the Japhethites, are not as in P the Hamites, but the groups which
represent the subdivisions of southern Arabia. J, therefore, like P
has two " remote" groups, but the entire character of the former's
Volkertafel is changed by his definition of the Hamites as those
representing the enemies of Israel.
To sum up, therefore, J's list includes three general groups: (a)
peoples towards whom J was indifferent because of little or of no
moment to Hebrew history, (b) peoples towards whom he harbored
bitter feelings of hostility, and (c) his own people towards whom
he was partial and whose descent he traced from the favorite son of
Noah. The first group includes again (i) the Japhethites in the
west, north and northeast and (2) the Eber-Joktan branch or
southern Arabs. His nationalistic spirit manifests itself in those
whom he places in the second group, while on the other hand the
limits to this spirit are represented by his willingness to place the
southern Arabs among the favored Shemites, being prompted to this
display of generosity by the absence of any motive for excluding
them and the self-evident consideration that the Shemites must
include other subdivisions besides his favorites-the Hebrews. The
scholastic spirit which J also possesses when it does not interfere
with his natural dislikes, though not to the same degree as P, leads
him likewise to recognize the close relationship between Hebrews
and Aramaeans, so that his Shemites as seems likely also included
Aram.
P, on the other hand, free from the nationalistic spirit, except pos-
sibly when the Canaanites are involved, sets up two very well-defined
groups: (a) the remote nations of the west, north and northeast-
the Japhethites, and (b) the remote nations of the south-Nubia,
Egypt and southern Arabia-the Hamites, to which he adds (c) as
a third group the Hebrews and those adjacent or "near" to them,
though his definition of "near" again displays a larger historical

I Kings, chap. x-amplified by further details in the ', Midrashic" litera-

ture. See e. g. Weil's Biblische Legenden der AMuselminner, pp. 247-271.
1904.] OLIVER-COLOR-SIGNALSIN MARINE SERVICE. 207

and geographical view than does J and the school of writers that
follow him. Lastly, it is to be noted that the writers responsible
for the numerous additions and glosses to J as well as the compiler
who combined J with P stand under the influence of the narrower
view manifested by J, so that in its present form the Volkertafel in
the tenth chapter of Genesis regarded as a " combined " document
impresses one as bearing out J's conception of Hamites and
Shemites, the former as the "accursed," the latter as those
" blessed" by Jahweh, rather than P's definition. Nor is it sur-
prising, in view of political events and religious developments in
the post-exilic period, that the more rigidly "scholastic" division
of nations should have been eclipsed by one that appealed more to
the national interests and that must have been a source of hope and
consolation in trying days-encouraging the Hebrews to look for-
ward to a time when the " curse " and " blessing " pronounced on
Ham and Shem, or Canaan and Eber, respectively, would be ful-
filled.
University of Pennsylvania, June, I904.

REGULATION OF COLOR-SIGNALS IN MARINE AND

NAVAL SERVICE.

BY CHARLES A. OLIVER.

(Read April 9, 1904.)

When it is considered that the most dangerous periods of time
for the safety of lives and preservation of property at sea are those
during which the proper recognition of color-signals constitutes the
main and, at times, the only guide for immediate action, the impor-
tance of the regulation of the choice of the colors used, the character
of the materials employed, the size of the objects submitted for
inspection, and the degree and the character of the visual acuity
necessary for the determination of such colors, become evident.
So long as the high seas are necessarily free, and harbors con-
stantly changing in topography and ofttimes difficulty of access;
rivers and streams occupied in similar places by crafts of varied
size and differing speeds; permanently fixed objects, such as buoys
and direction and danger indicators, must have color differentiation
employed as their main expressive feature; and color-signs must be
used to signify the position of large floating masses, such as ships at